Concept Exploration of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle

Transcription

1 Concept Exploration of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle Dr. John Burrow, Dr. Norbert Doerry, Rob Cross, Mark Earnesty, Joe Was, Jim Myers, Jeff Banko, Jeff McConnell, Dave Ungar, Joshua Pepper, and COL Tracy Tafolla Approved for Public Release Distribution is 1

2 Introduction Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) Still in service after 40 years Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Cancelled in 2011 Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) Initial Capabilities Document 25 Oct 2011 Acquisition Decision Memorandum 1 Dec 2011 Authorized entry to Materiel Solution Analysis phase Authorized Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) initiation Analysis of Alternatives Completed in June 2012 Validated Marine Corps requirement for an over-the-horizon, self-deployable, survivable, amphibious vehicle Did not specifically address High Water Speed AAV (Photo By: Mass Communication Specialist 3 rd Class Amanda Kitchner) EFV Prototype (Photo By: Lance Cpl. Brandon R. Holgersen) Is an affordable, survivable, high water speed ACV feasible? What is the relative value of high water speed compared to low water speed? 2

3 ACV Concept Exploration Team (February 2013-February 2014) 3

4 ACV Team CD&I PP&O P&R DASN ELM MCSC PEO LS NAVSEA ONR TARDEC NSWC Dahlgren NSWC Carderock NSWC Philadelphia NSWC Dam Neck ERDC Industry GTRI Stevens University University of Michigan 4

5 High Water Speed Physics 5

6 High Water Speed Defined Technically Semi-planing craft that transitions to HWS between knots (varies based on sea state) Once on plane the vehicle can accelerate to a higher speed in the knot range Operationally Deploy off an amphibious warfare ship: LHA/LHD/LPD/LSD. Accelerate to semi-planing mode and drive to the shore at high speed. For deployment distances 25 NM and greater, reach shore at least 1.5 hours faster than a displacement craft. As approach shore, transition to displacement mode and close the shore at eight knots. 6

7 Study Approach (Traditional vs. Set-Based Design) 7

8 ACV Capability Partitioning Tradable Requirements Based on User Preferences Big Rocks & Common Capabilities (Basis For 24 Trade Studies) Not Tradable Additional Capabilities Under-Blast Protection Direct Fire Protection Lethality (Firepower) Troop Carrying Capacity Other Common Capabilities High Water Speed Weight available equals Planing weight minus weight used for HWS, Common Capabilities & Big rocks Total weight cannot exceed planing weight budget Establishes planing weight budget 8

9 VALUE OF SPEED STUDY USER WORKSHOPS & SURVEYS BASELINE STUDY TRADE STUDY REQUIREMENTS STUDY Analysis Plan DOORS Database Draft CDD Draft Spec Draft AP Other Studies & Reports FACT Ground Rules & Assumptions List SE OPT - like Technical Model Technical Model SE OPT - like Cost Model Cost Model Operational Models Operational Models CAPABILITY CONCEPT EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 9

10 ACV Studies STUDY Requirements Study Baseline Study Trade Study HWS Study PURPOSE To analyze the Draft ACV Capability Development Document (CDD) to determine the number of requirements specified, the relationship between requirements from both a mission and technical perspective and user preferences for tradable requirements. To develop Draft CDDs for all viable capability concepts. To understand and evaluate the design and cost implications of less than acceptable capability concepts, as well as to test and validate the analytical methodologies and tools used to assess Trade Study capability concepts. To evaluate the technical viability and costs of capability concepts derived from all possible permutations of lethality, troop capacity, underblast protection and direct fire protection alternatives. To determine the performance, effectiveness, operational flexibility and tactical advantages provided by a HWS ACV when compared to a low water speed (LWS) ACV. PRODUCTS - Requirements database - Requirements traceability (e.g., inter and intra requirements relationships) - User preferences and values placed on requirements - Draft Capability Concept CDDs - Design strategies(e.g., modularity, future growth, etc) - Baseline Capability Concepts assessment (feasibility and costs) - Processes, models and tools validation - Trade Capability Concepts assessments (feasibility and costs) - Trade Capability Concepts performance and effectiveness - Measures of Performance - Measures of Effectiveness - Operational Contributions 10

11 Definitions Capability Concept Requirements set Specific levels for each of the big rocks Ground Rules & Assumptions (GR&A) for everything else. Configuration A specific set of components comprising a complete vehicle. Feasible Configuration A configuration that our current analysis shows will work and meet the requirements of the associated capability concept. For this study, analysis limited to weight and component compatibility. Viable Configuration A configuration that actually works when produced and meets the requirements of the associated capability concept. Concepts currently deemed Feasible may prove not to be Viable due to future analysis or testing. 11

12 Configuration Modeling Market Research Database Documents ACV component cost and technical data Uses a modified EFV Work Breakdown Structure Based on information provided by Industry Data traceability retained Translates study concept requirements to component selection Technical Parameters Tool Calculates first unit Bill of Material cost Other technical parameters needed by the Common Cost Model Assumptions documented in GR&A Common Cost Model Calculates Average Per-Unit Cost (APUC) and a lifecycle cost estimate. Assumptions documented in GR&A 12

13 Assembling a Configuration 13

14 Framework for Assessing Cost and Technology (FACT) Provides a framework for integrating models, synthesis tools, and analysis tools. Employs a Work Breakdown Structure. May use fixed parameters or parameters specified as probability density functions. Enables Monte Carlo simulation to create many configurations for a given concept. May employ optimization algorithms to increase probability of producing feasible configurations. May employ filters to remove configurations that are not feasible. Incorporates multiple options for visualizing results. Uses Model-Based Systems Engineering standards. Developed cooperatively between the Marine Corps Systems Command and Georgia Tech Research Institute. 14

15 Scatter Plot Cost 15

16 Configuration Optimization & Diversity Cost 16

17 Trade Study Results Capabilities 14 Troops; "A" Direct Fire Protection 14 Troops; "B" Direct Fire Protection 17 Troops; "A" Direct Fire Protection 17 Troops; "B" Direct Fire Protection "C" Under-Blast Protection; Weapon "X" "C" Under-Blast Protection; Weapon "Y" Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible High Risk Feasibility High Risk Feasibility "C" Under-Blast Protection; Weapon "Z" "D" Under-Blast Protection; Weapon "X" "D" Under-Blast Protection; Weapon "Y" High Risk Feasibility High Risk Feasibility High Risk Feasibility Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible "D" Under-Blast Protection; Weapon "Z" Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible 17

18 Insight Improving Lift Capability through hydrodynamic improvements offers opportunity to use less expensive but heavier components. COST 18

19 Drag Innovation Team: Aft Lifting body Optimum Angles lbs 32.7 inches Need to test at full-scale to confirm Speed Model Testing: Aft Lifting Body Reduced Drag 19

20 Tradable Requirements Master CDD Requirements Y(13) N 185 Y(20) N 165 Y(7) N 158 N(118) Y ~40 TRADABLE NO TRADE High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact 20

21 Flexibility and Modularity Flexibility Exact value of a requirement not yet determined A range for the value is established. Time when requirement will be determined specified Short Term: Before MS A Mid Term: Within 1 year after MS A Far Term: Before MS B Design must affordably accommodate range of requirement until the value is established. Enables deferring decision until more is known about the impact of the requirement on cost and value. HWS ACV is weight critical. Providing all desired capabilities together not currently feasible. Modularity Ability to inherently meet the current threshold and accept the modularity impacts in order to grow to the final desired capability Categories: Field: modules selected and changed out in the field Depot: modules changed out in a depot environment Variant: design modularity; variant with high commonality ordered for production, but not designed to be modified later. Modularity requirements documented in pairs: Threshold requirement at Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Modularity features for future upgrades 21

22 User Feedback Clearly emphasized the importance of offensive capability (lethality and troop capacity) over defensive capability (under-blast protection and direct fire protection). Assigned critical importance to protecting and enhancing offensive capability. Consistently expressed their top principal capabilities. Some differences in rankings based on specialty or MEF affiliation Workshop conducted at Ellis Hall on 9-11 July

23 Conclusions A survivable, capable, high water speed ACV is technically feasible No new technology required Additional R&D could enable increased planing weight More capability Use heavier, but less expensive components 23